Number of Words : 2447
Number of References : 3
This report is based on the following case study -
MENSTRIE & CO.
Just over a year ago, Menstrie & Co purchased new machinery for £45,000 for use in the manufacture of a particular component. The total direct manufacturing costs for these components are £50,000 per year with raw materials costing a further £40,000. The current level of output is some 100,000 items per year. Menstrie & Co expect to continue making the final product in which these components are incorporated for another 8 years.
Stirling Components, one of Menstrie & Co's regular suppliers, has developed a new method of producing the component in question and has offered to supply Menstrie's entire needs under a renewable one-year contract at a cost of 83p per piece.
Menstrie & Co's Purchasing Manager believes this offer to be most attractive. With the cost of own manufacture running at 95p per piece (including the capital cost of the machine), he argues that the savings wills total £96,000 over 8 years. He is therefore suggesting that Menstrie should axe this particular manufacturing operation, sell their recently purchased machinery and accept Stirling's offer.
The Production Manager, however, who was responsible for the original decision to install the new machinery, is claiming that problems of quality control and security of supply aside, there is still no economic case for purchasing rather than manufacturing. The machinery, though virtually new and having a useful remaining life for some 8 years, has few alternative uses and could be sold for some £5,000. Since its current book value is £40,000, this would result in a loss of £35,000. The Production Manager, proud of his recently acquired grasp of discounting techniques, pointed out that this initial loss of £35,000 followed by annual savings of some £7,000 for 8 years gave a return on the 'buy rather than make' idea of only some 12%, while the company's current cost of capital was 20%.
He pointed out that even this, however, was a highly conservative analysis, since it ignored three other serious problems:
1) The components produced by Stirling's new process could vary in diameter by up to 2 mm. While this in no way distracted from the quality of the final product in which these components were incorporated, it did mean that Menstrie would have to fit a variable dimension sensor to one of the machines used in sub-assembly, and this would cost £8,000.
2) While Stirling's delivery service was good, they would not deliver batches of less than 30,000 items, and this implied an average stockhold of 15,000 items throughout the year. This was a substantial increase over the 2 weeks' supply of both raw materials and components currently held in stock, and would occupy an additional 10% of the total warehouse space.
3) The only alternative job which the Production Manager could offer his chief operator was one currently being advertised at £7,000 per year in another department. Because of the chief operator's contract with the company, he would have to be transferred at his present salary of £8,000.
The purchasing manager felt the problem with the chief operator was trivial and that the inventory question was a "red herring". The warehouse was only 60% utilised, and on the basis of current plans, no additional space would be required for another 4 years when an extension costing £50,000 was planned. Since the use of this capacity involved no cash outlays, the Purchasing Manager argued that the cost of inventory could be ignored. As far as he could see, spending £8,000 to save £96,000 looked a pretty good deal.
At this stage, it was becoming clear that someone would need to act as arbiter in this dispute. A judgement was needed on which issues were important, which manager was correct, and what decision Menstrie & Co should take.
REQUIRED<br />(a) Critically evaluate the arguments used by the purchasing and production managers. Which (if either) is correct? 20%<br />(b) What are the important issues in this situation, and which factors should (and should not) be included in the financial analysis? 20%<br />(c) What should Menstrie & Co do? Back up your recommendation with a financial appraisal. 40%<br />(d) What are the risks of following your recommended action? What alternatives might Menstrie & Co consider? 20%<br />
Price Full Assignment : 90 USD (Ready assignment, instant delivery)
Price Custom Assignment : 180 USD (Assignment Uniquely made for you with Plagiarism Report, Delivery within 72 hours)
Price References : 15 USD (Only References, Instant Delivery)
AKey : FFM-18754